Bio-based and Applied Economics 5(2): 175-198, 2016 ISSN 2280-6180 (print) © Firenze University Press ISSN 2280-6172 (online) www.fupress.com/bae Full Research Article DOI: 10.13128/BAE-17140 Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland Emilia Schmitt1,2, DominiquE BarjollE1,2,*, anaëllE tanquErEy-caDo2, Gianluca Brunori3 1 Sustainable Agroecosystems Group, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich ETH, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland 2 Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick CH-5070, Switzerland 3 Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Università di Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy Date of submission: 2015 30th, September; accepted accepted 2016 3rd, August Abstract. Local food generally has a positive image, supported among consumers by the perception of reduced negative impacts on the environment and other dimensions. However, a critical analysis of local food chains’ performance in comparison with more global ones is still needed to objectively assess the real benefits and drawbacks of local and global food chains. A careful analysis needs to be conducted to compare the sus- tainability performance of local food value chains with global ones. In this paper, the methodology of selecting a set of attributes and indicators of performance to compare the multi-dimensional performance of a local with a global food chain is presented. A specific selection of attributes of performance around five sustainability dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health and ethical) is used to measure and evaluate two Swiss milk chains’ performances and compare the local chain with the global one. Keywords. Local, global, attributes, sustainability, indicators, milk JEL codes. Q56, Q57 1. Introduction Currently, there is an increasing consumers’ interest about the impact of food prod- ucts on the environment, on their health or on social aspects. Consumers’ demand for “local” food has increased significantly as a consequence of their willingness to purchase quality products and to support local economy and its farms (Adams and Salois, 2010; King et al., 2010). However, a critical analysis of local food chains’ performance in com- parison with more global ones is still needed to objectively assess the real benefits and drawbacks of local and global food chains. In the last years several authors have stressed the need to set up metrics, such as indi- cators, to assess the sustainability of food systems (Ericksen, 2007; van der Vorst, 2006). In *Corresponding author: barjolle@ethz.ch 176 E. Schmitt et al. their article, Pretty et al. (2010) even express the question: “How can we develop agreed metrics to monitor progress towards sustainability in different agricultural systems that are appropriate for, and acceptable to, different agro-ecological, social, economic and political contexts?”, which means that such systems of attributes of performance should also be transposable to other countries and contexts, in addition to being objective, holis- tic and multidimensional (Born and Purcell, 2006). For the purpose of this paper, we take the conceptual framework proposed by Neven (2014), which proposes that a sustainable food value chain can be conceptualized as “the full range of farms and firms and their successive coordinated value-adding activities that produce particular raw agricultural materials and transform them into particular food products that are sold to final consumers and disposed of after use, in a manner that is profitable throughout, has broad-based benefits for society, and does not permanently deplete natural resources”. In this study, the sustainability impact is assessed on two milk value chains in order to compare a local chain with a more global one. Actually, a clear distinction between the local and the global remains very unclear because there is no strict definition of local food (Edwards-Jones, 2010). In this study, we have considered the six criteria listed in Brunori et al. (2016) to select the case studies: (i) spatial configuration, (ii) product identity, (iii) physical distance, (iv) size of operations, (v) governance, and (vi) technologies. The local and global cases should be as opposite as possible in a maximum number of criteria. The two case studies in the fresh milk sector that are compared through the sustainability assessment are further described in chapter 3. 2. Methodology: sustainability assessment for food value chains Several methods for assessing sustainability already exist, such as life cycle assessment (LCA) that focuses on the environmental impacts of a defined product all along the pro- duction chain, or the response-inducing sustainability evaluation (RISE), focusing at a farm or firm level of assessment. However, these methods usually do not include a multidimen- sional assessment operated at the scale of the entire food value chain (from input suppliers to consumers). The inclusive approach of sustainability assessment (whole supply chain and all aspects of sustainability) is currently rarely conducted as sustainability is often reduced to its environmental aspect or the assessment remains at the farm level (Schader et al., 2014). Therefore, there is a need to develop a methodological framework to assess the per- formance of food value chains as a whole, in a way that allows the comparison of all dimensions of sustainability between different chains. The method used in this study has thus this goal of evaluating the sustainability performance of food value chains and com- paring a more local chain and a more global chain in the milk sector. The methodology proposed by the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) Guidelines from the FAO (2013) was the starting point for the elaboration of our methodological framework and proposes 4 main steps (mapping, contextualization, selecting indicators, reporting) that were adapted as follows. These steps are also explained in Brunori et al. (2016). 1. Mapping: This step mainly focuses on the scope and definition of the system bound- aries, in terms of spatial definition and identification of entities. In this case, it is 177Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland important that the compared value chains encompass the same entities and compara- ble scopes. These are defined and represented in chapter 3. 2. Contextualization: As suggested in the SAFA guidelines, information should be gathered on all aspects of the value chains under study and the surrounding context. Knowledge about aspects such as the flows within the chain, interactions between actors, prices, geographical situation of the sector and national physical and socio- economic contexts, will be crucial to select the relevant indicators (as described in the third step below) and benchmarks. This is in order to grasp what can be the influence of the context on the performance of the value chains. For this reason, additional information has been collected in relation to the context surrounding the cases by what can be called descriptive indicators or ‘descriptors’. They concern agricultural policies, tax and subsidies’ systems, food regulations or natural conditions being used to describe and further define the chain and its context, helping in the later comparison. These descriptors also concern the data for the criteria of local-global distinction. 3. Selecting Indicators: For the goal of comparison of a local and a global value chain, a list of indicators was developed from different sources and not only from the SAFA listing. Instead of using SAFA themes, own themes, (what have been designated as “attributes”) were used. Attributes are aggregations of a wide range of sustainabil- ity criteria for assessment, identified through a media analysis exercise and a Delphi survey conducted in both countries (Schmitt et al., 2014; Kirwan et al., 2014), as described in Brunori et al. (2016). Sources were selected for their reference to how the performance of food value chains is viewed in the public, scientific, market and policy spheres and most frequent themes were identified through software of qualitative data analysis (Kirwan et al., 2014; Schmitt et al., 2014). These themes were refined into attributes of performance through a participatory process in which twelve key actors of the food sector were interviewed (Schmitt et al., 2014). Because the sustainability assessment should be holistic and multidimensional (Ostrom, 2009), experts from socio-economical to natural sciences and stakeholders from all stages of the food supply chains were consulted to define attributes and afterwards benchmarks. Actors were asked to rank the proposed attributes in order of importance and to change or complete the terms used. The final list of 12 attributes was selected through this itera- tive process and is shown in table 1. Each attribute is thereafter assessed with two or more indicators, which contain specific questions addressed to obtain performance scores. The selection of the indicators was made according to feasibility, data availabil- ity and relevance, three criteria often quoted in the literature on sustainability assess- ment (Bockstaller et al., 2009). Feasibility means that indicators can realistically be measured in quantitative and qualitative terms and scored in relation to a benchmark. According to FAO (2013, p.216), benchmarks are “values or qualitative descriptions of activities, used as the basis by which the performance of an enterprise is evalu- ated within an indicator domain to facilitate a rating of sustainability performance. Regional and/or sectorial averages, as well as defined average (standard) and best practice values can be used as benchmarks”. Indicators were adapted from existing lists of indicators (SAFA, RISE, etc.) as these lists also give insights about how such indicators have been measured and what benchmarks can be applied. Further indica- 178 E. Schmitt et al. tors have been created according to the case and consulted stakeholders. Data avail- ability means that certain indicators were suppressed after checking existing databases and possibilities to gather sufficient representative primary data. Relevance means that the selected indicators are relevant for the purpose of comparing local with glob- al, and that means that indicators with a probable difference between the local and global chains were prioritized. The selection of indicators is however specifically adapted to a Swiss context and concerns a dairy sector. Table 1 shows all indicators by attributes and the questions used for data collection. The benchmarks applied for the assessment, the specific units as well as references are listed in the extended table in Annex. 4. Reporting: This last step includes the data analysis and its visual representation and discussion. Data can be qualitative or quantitative, primary or secondary, and have been collected through semi-structured interviews, online questionnaires and secondary sources (details in Table 2). After entry of all data into a database (EXCEL sheets), the performance was calcu- lated for both chains based on the average measures on all the actors of the supply chain’s step concerning each indicator. A score on a percentage scale was calculated for each indicator according to the benchmarks of lower and higher performance. The process of scoring the indicators’ performance is presented in figure 1 with the exam- ple of the indicator “Producers’ income”. It is a continuous indicator for which the performance is evaluated on a continuous scale between pre-defined values of what could be the highest performance (higher benchmark) and what can be considered as the lowest acceptable performance (lower benchmark). The performance is then calculated with a cross-multiplication as on figure 1 and as of Schmitt et al. (2014). The benchmarks are either available from standardized indicators (FAO, 2013) or can be adjusted according to context justification (step 1) and experts’ consultation. For example, a veterinary scientist was consulted regarding animal welfare indicators, in addition to consulting Swiss statistics on farm animal treatment and programs. Most sources consulted to establish the benchmarks are from institutions of the agricul- tural sector, as the benchmarks need to be in the same relevant context as the data. This limits the use of peer-reviewed literature in the definition of the benchmarks. For example, comparing income with some worldwide standard would not make sense, as incomes in Switzerland are usually much higher than in other countries. Refer- ences included the Swiss annual agricultural reporting (Federal Office for Agricul- ture (FOAG), 2013), the milk sector statistics (Union Suisse des Paysans, 2012), and reports (Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), 2014) or websites of institutions and organizations in this sector1. Benchmarks regarding practices were established follow- ing the SAFA indicators (FAO, 2013) or by simulating the worst case and best case scenarios like for the GHG emissions. The references used to define indicators and benchmarks are listed in the table in the Annex and the SAFA indicators are specified with their code (e.g. E 5.1.3). As it can be seen in the table in the Annex, some indicators do not have values as benchmarks, but rather a yes/no (e.g. “Differentiation of the product”), which 1 swissmilk.ch; www.sbv-usp.ch; blw.admin.ch; etc 179Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland Table 1. Attributes and indicators for the sustainability assessment. Attributes Dimensions Indicator Question Value Creation and Distribution Economic Differentiation of the product Is the product clearly differentiated in order to increase its value? Producers’ income What is the price obtained by primary producers? Share of producers’ price on sale price What is the share of producers’ price on the sale price? Social Capital Social, economic, ethical Cooperative or association of producers in place Do producers form cooperatives or associations to defend their interest? Interprofessional association or negotiation platform Is there an inter-professional association or a platform for actors of the chain to meet and negotiate? Working conditions Social, economic Average wage paid to farm employees What is the salary paid to employees on farm? Average annual income of farmers What is the average annual income? (Agricultural familial net income incl. direct payments) Eco-efficiency Environmental, economic Production per lifespan of dairy cows How long do you keep the dairy cows before slaughter? What is the average milk production per cow per year? Packaging material used What type of packaging is used for the milk (multiple choice cf. categories)? Climate change potential Environmental, economic Transport Greenhouse gas emissions What transport means do you use to deliver your product? What is the distance of delivery? Production Greenhouse gas emissions How much GHG is emitted on the farm- production stage? Biodiversity Environmental, health Ecological compensation area What is the percentage of the ecological compensation surfaces in relation to the total agricultural area? Crop rotations How many crop rotations do you undertake on average per field? Locally adapted/resistant/ endangered crop varieties Do you use locally adapted/resistant/ endangered crop varieties? (According to Pro Specia Rara) Area free of pesticide use On what percentage of your total cropland area is no pesticides applied? GMO-free feed (certified) in the supply chain Is the animal feed GMO free (labelled/certified) and do you renounce on the plantation of GMO crops? Breeding degree of the livestock What breeds compose your dairy herd? 180 E. Schmitt et al. Attributes Dimensions Indicator Question Soil Preservation Environmental, health Growing of legumes in proportion of cropland surface On what percentage of your cropland do you regularly grow legumes? Percentage of organic fertilizers in the total fertilizer application What is the percentage of organic fertilizers in the total fertilizer application? (Mineral and organic) Food quality & food safety   Health, ethical Concentrated feed used per kg milk How much concentrated feed do you give to your cows per year? Percentage of roughage in the animal feed What is the percentage of roughage in the daily feed ration? Food safety standards from suppliers Does the food chain actor have food safety insurance from the participants preceding them in the chain? Transparency Ethical, health Proportion of information available to farmers Which information is available to farmers (tick from: final price, type of product, place) Sufficient and clear Information available for consumers What is the information available to consumers on packaging? Information made publicly available What Information do you make freely available (online)? Food Wastage Ethical, environmental Use of biogas plants Is the farmyard manure and organic waste further processed in biogas plants? Use of byproducts from the food industry as animal feed (% of farmers) Are byproducts from the food industry used as animal feed? Milk loss on farm What percentage of milk is lost (not incl. converted as by-product)? Milk loss at processing What percentage of milk is lost at processing stage? Traceability Ethical, economic, health Traceability upstream of the supply chain Is it possible to retrace the whole supply chain of the purchased products (incl. feed, package, etc)? Traceability downstream of the supply chain Are the produced food products clearly marked so that the buyer can completely retrace them to their source? Animal welfare Ethical Proportion of Participation in outdoor grazing program Do you take part in the project Regular Outings? Life span of the dairy cows What is the average age of the cow at slaughter? Proportion of Participation in loose housing program Are the animals loose in the stable? (according to BTS program) Proportion of animals treated by Antibiotics in a year What proportion of dairy cows is treated with antibiotics on average per year? Transportation duration to the slaughterhouse What is the average transportation time to the slaughterhouse? 181Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland indicates that the indicator is qualitative and is not evaluated on a continuous numerical scale. Rather, the fact to fulfil the criteria as a whole is considered as the maximum performance. In this case, the performance does not vary but is either 100 or 0%. In some other cases (e.g., “Packaging material used”), the indicator is also qualitative but there are other stages of performance between “yes” and “no” and the categories for each percentage of performance are then given in the Annex. The last step consisted in analysing the differences of performance in each indicator between the local and the global chain. 3. The Swiss milk case study In Switzerland, two specific supply chains have respectively been chosen as “global” and “local” examples for comparison according to the six criteria of Brunori Table 2. Overview of the informing stakeholders and data collection procedures. Chain Actor Data collection method Local milk value chain Cooperative Interview 1.5 hour Farmers Online survey sent to 53 farmers on a total of 75 farmers (17 answers) Retailer 1 Interview 1.5 hour Retailer 2 E-mail and telephone questionnaire Processor 1 E-mail questionnaire Input provider Interview 1.5 hour Global milk value chain Farmers Written questionnaire (5 answers) Secondary data Processor Interview 1.5 hour Retailer Interview 1.5 hour (in common with interview local chain) Input provider Interview 1.5 hour (common with local chain) Figure 1. Benchmarking system of indicators with the example of the indicator “Producers’ income”. 182 E. Schmitt et al. et al. (2016). The two cases are described in this chapter and table 3 summarizes their characteristics in the six criteria, although the sixth criterion does not show a difference. The global supply chain is represented by a generic milk distributed all over the country by the supermarket owning the brand, thereafter named “global milk”. The supply chain is composed of the steps presented in figure 2. These steps of the supply chain also limit the scope of the assessment by the indicators of sustainability. The milk may come from at least 2,000 dairy farmers. However, the processor uses “industry milk” for a whole segment of products from yogurts to desserts and so it was not possible to know in detail which quantities of milk are used for the global milk and from exactly how many producers it comes. The company processing and packaging the milk is also active at the international level, exporting specific products, but not the fresh milk. The company processes 265 millions kg milk per year but the exact part of fresh milk is not known, though it has been evaluated as around 11% during an interview. The supplying dairy farmers are located in three regions of Switzerland: the North-West around Basel, the North-East around St-Gallen, both assembling milk through collecting centres, and some more independent dairy farmers in the South-West range of Jura. These farmers are members of “milk centres” that are responsible for collecting and bulging the milk before delivery to the processor. Their governance is however rather weak and the price of industry milk has been falling constantly in the last few years. Thus the dairy farmers in this segment often have to produce a large quantity at a low production cost. They are mostly located in the low land and farm intensively with the type and quantity of input allowed within the Swiss agricultural legislation. The processing and packaging take place in South Switzerland and the milk is distributed all over the country. The distance can be evaluated as a minimum of 200 km between collecting centre and supermarket, and up to 500 km or more travelled within Switzerland. Fig. 2 shows the estimated average distances (according to interviews and road distances on google.maps) between some steps of the supply chain. In addition, a substantial distance is covered by inputs used as feed for the dairy farmers. They for example use soymeal feed from Brazil in the mix fed to dairy cows. Although the supply chain is mostly represented at the Swiss national level, it is the most “global” fresh milk product available to Swiss consumers and which can be contrasted in their purchasing decisions with the local milk described below. The local supply chain on the other hand is represented by fresh milk sold as “Pasture milk”, which is based on local resources and sold only in two defined regions by the same supermarket chain (which is divided in autonomous regions). The chain concerns a limited but increasing number of dairy farmers: 57 in the region Aare and 18 in the region Lucerne. In total the chain concerns approximately 13 to 15 million litres per year. One collector truck picks up the milk from the producers and one manufacturer packages it in each region and then delivers it to the distributing centre of the region. The total distance from farm to supermarket is evaluated between 40 and 100 km. In contrary to the global chain, dairy farmers are restricted in the use of imported feed and soymeal is specifically banned in this special regional milk chain. They have to follow a system of points attributed for good practices and if they do not obtain enough points they can be excluded from the supply chain (IP Suisse, 2015). However, some imported cereals like maize, might still be used (mostly from Europe) but the exact provenance is hard to 183Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland monitor and highly variable. The next objective of the initiators of this product is then to also control the use of cereals for feed. Concerning the social criteria of distinction between local and global, the main difference is that the local milk was an initiative from a farmers’ association, thus united and represented by this cooperative defending their interests and also deciding on the code of practice. The local actors thus have a higher control on the governance of the value chain. The local milk is also clearly differentiated as a local product as it is sold under a label for regional products. 4. Results The data collected and the scores of performance of both supply chains are presented in table 4. Of the 36 indicators, 20 obtained a better score in the local chain (56%), 7 Figure 2. Supply chains of the two milk case studies (global above, local below). >1000km 20km 195km 165km 24km >100km 100km (round trip for all farms) 54km 24km global and national inputs 2000 dairy farmers 2 milk collecting center 1 Processor 10 distribution centers supermarkets global and national inputs 75 dairy farmers 2 collectors- processors 2 distribution centers supermarkets 184 E. Schmitt et al. were equal and 9 were better in the global chain. These differences can also be seen in figure 3. On this chart the performance of the global chain has been artificially set to the middle of the scale (50%) and the performance of the local chain normalized to this score and limited between 0 and 100%. It can thus be seen in which indicators the local chain performs two times better or just slightly better, or worse than the global chain. We have set the global chain as reference because it is a conventional supermarket supply chain and the local chain is corresponding more to an alternative. On this radar, it is quite clear that the local chain is situated more at the outsides of the radar, thus showing higher performances. It is especially clear for the attributes transparency, soil preservation and food quality and safety. The local milk performs better for 6 attributes composed each by 2 to 4 indicators. It performs better in multiple dimensions like in the economic and social dimensions (value creation and distribution), in the environmental and health dimensions (climate change potential, biodiversity, soil preservation), and in the ethical and health dimensions (food quality and safety, and transparency). In the economic dimension, which is concerned by the attribute “value creation and distribution”, there are three indicators. The indicator “differentiation of the product” is a yes/no indicator concerning the clear promotion of the product with ecological and/or provenance aspects. The answer is yes for the local chain and no for the global chain, thus explaining the total difference in the score. For the two other indicators, it seems that milk producers in the local chain obtain a slightly higher price on the milk, even though the performance is really low for both chains (12 and 9%). But in proportion to the price of the final product in the supermarket local farmers get a lower share than in the global chain (local farmers get 60 cents out of CHF 1.55 (39%) and global farmers get 59.3 cents out of CHF 1.43 (43%) for a litre of milk). The increase of the retail price of the local milk is thus translated in a higher margin for the retailer. Table 3. Description of the case studies along the criteria of local-global distinction (Brunori et al., 2016). Criteria Global milk Local milk Spatial configuration Widely spread production, 2 main collectors, 1 packaging hub and national consumption Two separate regions with their own concentrated producers, common collecting and packaging and regional consumption Product identity Generic product (supermarket brand) Differentiated with a label of regional origin and ecological quality Physical distance From 200 to 500 km or more (main supply chain). Global inputs 40 to 100 km (main supply chain) Controlled inputs (continental) Size of operations The biggest national enterprise in this sector, transforming 265 million kg milk per year (incl. other dairy products) Two regional dairies, overall production of 13 to 15 million litres per year Governance Farmers weakly organized around regional collecting centers, the processor/retailer detains the decision power on price, processing, etc Initiative of farmers organized in an association who manages a book of requirements and negotiate prices Technologies Most modern and automated technologies Most modern and automated technologies 185Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland Table 4. Data for indicators and performance scores. Indicator Unit Data Score (%) Global Local Global Local Differentiation of the product no/yes no yes 0 100 Producers’ income ct/ kg milk 59.3 60.6 9 12 Share of producers’ price on sale price % 42.7 39.1 14 0 Cooperative or association of producers in place no/yes yes yes 100 100 Inter-professional association or negotiation platform no/yes yes yes 100 100 Average wage paid to farm employees CHF 3200 3250 1 3 Average annual income of farmers CHF 54 927 51 471 45 30 Production per lifespan of dairy cows kg milk per lifespan 28 135 38 233 9 38 Packaging material used categories packaging from certified ecological production packaging from certified ecological production 40 40 Transport Greenhouse gas emissions CO2eq./km 51.3 19.8 0 59 Production Greenhouse gas emissions kg CO2eq./kg milk ECM 1.1 1.5 69 53 Ecological compensation area % of total agricultural area 11.8 13.3 41 52 Crop rotations number of crop rotations 3 5.7 0 68 Locally adapted/resistant/endangered crop varieties no/yes no no 0 0 Area free of pesticide use % of crop land 27.9 33.5 28 34 GMO-free feed (certified) in the supply chain no/yes 0 87.5 0 88 Breeding degree of the livestock average of categories for all farmers 50 22 50 22 Growing of legumes in proportion of cropland surface % of the total crop land 0 10.4 0 100 percentage of organic fertilizers in the total fertilizer application % of total fertilizers used 71.4 69.7 71 70 Concentrated feed used per kg milk g concentrated feed / kg milk produced 130.4 90.3 25 52 Percentage of roughage in the animal feed % of total feed 70 77.3 33 58 Food safety standards from suppliers no/yes yes yes 100 100 Proportion of information available to farmers average of categories for all farmers 0 42.4 0 42 Sufficient and clear Information available for consumers categories (%) 40 80 40 80 186 E. Schmitt et al. The social dimension concerns two attributes and four indicators. The two indicators of the attribute “social capital” do not show any difference as both chains perform with 100%. In both cases cooperatives and inter-professional organisations are present to support farmers in the defence of their interests and to offer space for negotiations. Concerning the attribute “working conditions”, farm employees are paid a little better in the local chain although the difference in performance is minimal (2%) and both are extremely low (1 and 3%). When looking at the annual income of dairy farmers in comparison with the national average in this sector, the ones in the global chain obtain a performance 15% higher. In summary, both chains obtain their equal share of indicators performing better in the social dimension. The environmental dimension contains more attributes and indicators: four attrib- utes measured by 12 indicators, but all of them are also relevant to other dimensions (cfr. table 1). The eco-efficiency is considered both environmentally - because the production of more with less is responsible in terms of resource use and planetary boundaries (Pret- ty, 2013) - and economically - because it can obviously reduce production costs. The first indicator in this attribute looks at the production per cow on their entire lifespan. Cows in the local chain live in average a half-year longer and also were reported to produce more per year so the local chain has a better performance. The second indicator concerns the material used for packaging: the most ecological and economical would be to have no Indicator Unit Data Score (%) Global Local Global Local Information made publicly available categories (%) 70 100 67 100 Use of biogas plants no/yes no no 0 0 Use of byproducts from the food industry as animal feed % of farmers 20 17.6 20 18 Milk loss on farm % 1 1.5 90 85 Milk loss at processing % 0.5 0.2 0 60 Traceability upstream of the supply chain average of categories for all farmers 20 67.6 20 68 Traceability downstream of the supply chain no/yes 100 66.7 100 67 Proportion of Participation in outdoor grazing program % of participation (from all farmers) 69 100 92 100 Life span of the dairy cows years 4.5 5 0 0 Proportion of Participation in loose housing program % of participation (from all farmers) 23 70.6 77 100 Proportion of animals treated by Antibiotics in a year % treated cows 17.5 35.8 100 90 Transportation duration to the slaughterhouse minutes 46.3 42.9 82 86 187Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland packaging at all (re-used bottles) but actually both milks are packaged in similar paper- bricks, with however a label of ecological paper production (the FSC label). It is however not recyclable or reusable in both cases and both chains obtain a score of 40%. Regarding climate change impacts, the local chain performs better on limiting emissions from trans- port because of the much shorter distance travelled in the local chain. These scores were calculated from data about transport means and distance and using a life-cycle assessment database that gives coefficients of GHG emissions for transport means. For the second indicator “production greenhouse gas emissions”, no direct measurement of GHG emis- sions on farms was possible and a secondary source was used. Sutter et al. (2013) compare two systems very similar to ours in Switzerland. As the local system produces less milk on the same area because of grass-based feed, more GHG, especially methane, are emitted at the production stage (Sutter et al., 2013). The biodiversity attribute contains six indicators and the global chain performs better in only one of them. A certain percentage of the farming surfaces must be set aside (non- cultivated): this is a requirement for being eligible to certain direct payments and that’s why all farmers comply with this indicator. Interestingly, farmers in the local chain still had larger “compensation surfaces” (13.3% on average against 11.8%). The diversity of crops in the rotation is also much higher with an average of 7 crops for local farmers and only 3 for the global chain. Farmers in neither chains use locally adapted or rare varieties (according to the Pro Specie rara catalogue (2016)) and both perform 0% for this indicator. The use of pesticides is done on larger surfaces among farmers of the global chain although the difference is small (performance 28% vs. 34% in the local chain). The use of GMO is Figure 3. Performance of the local chain compared to the global chain. 1. Differentiation of the product 2. Producers' income 3. Share of producers' price on sale price 4. Cooperative or association of producers in place 5. Inter-professional association or negotiation platform 6. Average wage paid to farm employees 7. average annual income of farmers 8. Production per lifespan of dairy cows 9. Packaging material used 10. Transport Greenhouse gas emissions 11. Production Greenhouse gas emissions 12. Ecological compensation area 13. Crop rotations 14. Locally adapted/resistant/endangered crop varieties 15. Area free of pesticide use 16. GMO-free feed (certified) in the supply chain 17. Breeding degree of the livestock 18. Growing of legumes in proportion of cropland surface 19. percentage of organic fertilizers in the total fertilizer application 20. Concentrated feed used per kg milk 21. Percentage of roughage in the animal feed 22. Food safety standards from suppliers 23. Proportion of information available to farmers 24. Sufficient and clear Information available for consumers 25. Information made publicly available (online) 26. Use of biogas plants 27. Use of byproducts from the food industry as animal feed 28. Milk loss on farm 29. Milk loss at processing 30. Traceability upstream of the supply chain 31. Traceability downstream of the supply chain 32. Proportion of Participation in outdoor grazing program 33. Life span of the dairy cows 34. Proportion of Participation in loose housing program 35. Proportion of animals treated by Antibiotics in a year 36. Transportation duration to the slaughterhouse 188 E. Schmitt et al. controversial regarding sustainability and the Swiss legislation is one of the strictest in their restriction but still allows some amount in animal feed. Farmers in the global chain do not renounce to it and do not use certified GMO-free feed but 87.5% of farmers in the local chain do. Regarding traditional species conservation on farms, neither chains had many traditional dairy cows and most tend to have high-producing breeds like red Holstein. Concerning the attribute Soil preservation, the local chain’s farmers use much more legumes in their crop cultures, which give them the advantage in the first indicator. Concerning the proportion of organic fertilization, both chains have surprisingly very close scores (71 and 70%). The attribute “food quality and food safety” covers the health dimension of the assessment. The two first indicators are linked to the fat quality found in the milk and in both cases the local chain performs better as the feeding of cows relies much more on fodder rather than concentrates. As a consequence the content of fatty acids in the milk, especially the omega3 to omega6 ratio, is healthier (Thomet et al., 2011). There is no difference in terms of safety standards followed by both chains (both 100% performance in the last indicator of this attribute). The four last attributes are linked to the ethical dimensions but also to the social or environmental dimensions. For all indicators of “transparency” the local chain performs around 40% better. These indicators were constructed with categories of information that should be available to farmers, consumers or the public about the product, its production and the enterprises in the supply chain. For the attribute “food wastage”, neither of the chains’ farmers use a biogas plant (first indicator). Concerning the use of industry by-products as feed, farmers of the global chain seem slightly better, as well as in avoiding milk losses. At processing, the local processors seem better in avoiding milk losses during packaging. In terms of traceability, the global chain has a better performance concerning the monitoring of traceability downstream of the supply chain (marking products which are sold) but a worse performance for traceability upstream of the supply chain (ability to know the origin of all components). The last attribute “animal welfare” contains five indicators and the local chain presents higher performances in three of them. Farmers of the local chain participate in more ani- mal-welfare voluntary programs and thus perform better in “Proportion of participation in outdoor grazing program” and “Proportion of Participation in loose housing program”. They also perform better in the last indicator “Transportation duration to the slaughter- house” probably due to their general geographical position closer to a major slaughter- house in Basel. Both chains have cows who do not live for many years (4.5 and 5 years), so both get a null performance according to the benchmarks with a minimum at 5 years, but the local chain still performs a little bit better. Concerning animal health, farmers in the global chain seem to give fewer antibiotics and thus perform better in the indicator “Proportion of animals treated by Antibiotics in a year”. 5. Discussion The analysis of several chosen indicators shows a clear distinction between the Global and Local milk that reflects the difference concerning geographical flows, governance, 189Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland production systems and logistics. The local milk clearly performs better in terms of number of indicators. This difference in performances can be explained in part by important factors that influence the performance score of several indicators, and were mentioned by most actors as relevant. These factors were the strategies in the choice of animal feed and the differ- entiation of the product. The animal feeding strategy for example influences the whole organization of farms by changing the possibilities of crop rotations, productivity per hec- tare and per cow, GHG emissions, animal welfare, fat quality in the milk, and also greatly influences the impact on biodiversity abroad where concentrated feed is produced. The differentiation of the product is a whole different marketing strategy that triggers a differ- ent supply chain arrangement and the sharing of information. It thus influences transpar- ency, relation among actors, communication with the consumers and price. In contrast, the standardization of the product that is a strategy more typical of global products leads to a decrease of precise information available to consumers and of transparency as well as traceability (for consumers and farmers), but on the other side, it can help to decrease the production costs, reduce waste and deal better with consumption variations over the year. However, the inclusion of social and environmental externalities might balance this. Moreover, the local milk chain was still at the beginning of the initiative at time of data collection and is still expected to improve its performance. For the moment, some of the local milk sometimes has to be de-classified and is then mixed with other milks into generic brands. When this happens, a part of the added value due to the differentiation of the product is lost. However, all in all, the efforts of this initiative to promote localness and ecological values around the local milk are shown to contribute to sustainability through our indicators. In comparison with other studies, Binder et al. (2012) realized a sustainability assess- ment of the Swiss milk sector in general, which would correspond to our global case study. Their indicators are constructed differently and the data are used in a too differ- ent way to allow direct comparison with our indicators. However, it is worth to underline that both studies identify similar themes of sustainability like biodiversity, social capital, GHG emissions, hourly wages, etc. applicable to the same stages of the value chain. Fur- thermore, both studies identify similar critical issues and trade-offs, for example that the increase of the biodiversity in Switzerland (by increasing conservation surfaces) might impact biodiversity in Brazil through the production of concentrated feed and the defor- estation linked to the cultivation of the corresponding soya and maize (Binder et al. 2012). This was however not the case in our local chain, as local farmers have larger conservation areas while feeding less concentrated feed at the same time. Interestingly, their study fol- lowed the same methodological process for the selection of indicators and benchmarking, which they call upper and lower boundaries of the sustainability range. A first important result in this study consist as well in the nature of the attributes. In Switzerland, milk production is seen by various stakeholders as being important from all points of views (multi-dimensional), but the choice of the attributes themselves reflect the sensitivity that is peculiar to that country and sector. As in Binder et al. (2012), social top- ics like fairness of remuneration of farmers, social capital and working conditions, but as well environmental issues like climate change, biodiversity, soil, food waste and more ethi- 190 E. Schmitt et al. cal and health concerns like food quality, transparency along food chain and animal welfare, are topics that strongly came forward. It is also necessary to acknowledge that the choice of the examined “critical issues” of sustainability of the milk value chain is very hard to main- tain objectivity, as the selection of the attributes integrates the stakeholders directly. It then becomes inevitably context-dependent, as they tend to give importance to what is relevant in their daily activities. The final selection is thus linked to that specific cultural and biophysi- cal context. The validity of the specific analysis framework and subsequent results is thus limited to a certain sector and to a certain country. In contrary to Pretty et al. (2010)’s hope for a universal tool, we rather think that such indicator tools have to be context-related. Therefore, the selection of the attributes and indicators really needs to be done in a participatory way and in connection with that context in order to be relevant (Van Passel and Meul, 2012; Binder et al., 2010; Bossel, 1999). A participatory process moreover has the advantage to avoid misinterpretations of the issues and results, which is often the case in sustainability assessments, as noted by Gasparatos and Scolobig (2012). The choice of the key stakeholders is therefore crucial and the researcher has to be aware that the final list of indicators could change the results one way or another (Schader et al., 2014). The benchmarking of each indicator is also a crucial phase. It already requires a holistic vision of what the limits in performance of the chain are and could be in the most sustainable and most unsustainable cases and a good knowledge of the context. The stakeholders interviewed during the attributes’ selection phase often emphasized the economic aspects as being the most crucial because without a substantial profit nothing can be done. This leads to the issue of weighting the indicators according to their importance. We have chosen not to dedicate this study to the weighing and further averaging of the indicators because the detailed results and multidimensionality should not be lost. As Schader et al. (2014) wrote, there is often a trade-off between the precision of data that researchers can collect and the multi-dimensionality of an evaluation; we then tried to overcome this challenge by downsizing the amount of attributes according to their relevance in the specific context of the dairy sector, while keeping some precise indicators. However the results show that some indicators could have been set aside as they do not show any difference between the local and global chains, such as social capital. Collecting data proved to be difficult for the very first (input provision) and last steps (distribution and consumption) of the supply chains in the study conducted. Indeed, some agricultural inputs are often imported through market channels that are hard to entirely trace and the sustainability of their production is even harder to assess. The end of the supply chain, with the biggest companies and sometimes the exportation of products, is also hard to be completely captured as stakeholders are harder to anonymise and fear more for the use of their confidential data. These two ends of the value chains are thus a sort of darker zones that deserve more attention in future sustainability assessments. 6. Conclusion As seen in this study developing a set of attributes of performance to compare local and global food value chains, the process of selecting the appropriate indicators and benchmarks are crucial. An in-depth exploration of the context and the participation of stakeholders in an iterative process were thus required to define the attributes and focus on the most rel- 191Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland evant ones. The use of numerous interviews and the wide sources to contextualize and assess each chain’s performance gives to the followed methodology great insight on each chain’s critical issues and on the most relevant attributes to assess. However, at the indicator level, more work should be carried out to weigh them for aggregation; such a process could how- ever be very time-consuming and reduce the transparency of the results and the objective- ness of the assessments. Nevertheless, the assessment succeeded in remaining multidimen- sional and in finding the critical issues that differentiate the local and global chains in their sustainability. The two major advantages of the studied “more local” chain in terms of sus- tainability are its marketing strategy to differentiate the product in terms of provenance and ecological label. This induces a more coordinated governance among producers and with the retailer. It also prompted a reflexion on the production’s book of requirement and ecological practices on farms. A major impact on sustainability comes from the animal feeding strategy as a grass-based diet influences the rotation of cultures (soil preservation), the biodiversity in Switzerland and Brazil, the time animals spend outside (animal welfare), and even the nutritional quality of the milk fatty acids. However, the global chain might have the advan- tage to emit less GHG emissions per kilo milk produced but an LCA from input production to consumption would be more adequate to evaluate this specific question. The global chain also might be more efficient in terms of production costs as farmers in the global chain showed higher annual wages, but the local initiative is still at its beginning. References Adams, D.C. and Salois, M.J. (2010). Local Versus Organic: A Turn in Consumer Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25: 331–341. Binder, C., Schmid, A. and Steinberger, J.K. (2012). Sustainability Solution Space of the Swiss Milk Value Added Chain. Ecological Economics 83: 210–220. Binder, C.R., Feola, G. and Steinberger, J.K. (2010). Considering the Normative, Systemic and Procedural Dimensions in Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessments in Agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 71–81. Bockstaller, C., Guichard, L., Keichinger, O, Girardin, P., Galan, M-B. and Gaillard, G. (2009). Comparison of Methods to Assess the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 223–235. Born, B. and Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 195–207. Bossel, H.H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Brunori, G., Galli, F., Barjolle, D., van Broekhuizen, R., Colombo, L., Giampietro, M., Kirwan, J., Lang, T., Mathijs, E., Maye, D., de Roest, K., Rougoor, C., Schwarz, J., Schmitt, E., Smith, J., Stojanovic, Z., Tisenkopfs, T. and Touzard, J-M. (2016). Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations for Assessment. Sustainability 8, 449. Edwards-Jones, G. (2010). Does Eating Local Food Reduce the Environmental Impact of Food Production and Enhance Consumer Health? The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 69: 582–591. 192 E. Schmitt et al. Ericksen, P.J. (2007). Conceptualizing Food Systems for Global Environmental Change Research. Global Environmental Change 18: 234–245. Federal Office for Agriculture - FOAG (2014). Marktbericht Milch. Bern, Switzerland. Federal Office for Agriculture - FOAG (2013). Rapport Agricole 2013. Berne, Switzerland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - FAO (2013). SAFA Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems Guidelines. Rome. Gasparatos, A. and Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the Most Appropriate Sustainability Assessment Tool. Ecological Economics 80: 1–7. IP Suisse (2015). Directives de Production pour le Lait des Prés. King, R.P., Hand, M.S., DiGiacomo, G., Clancy, K., Gómez, M.I., Hardesty, S.D., Lev, L. and McLaughlin, E.W. (2010). Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Kirwan, J., Maye, D., Bundhoo, D., Keech, D. and Brunori, G. (2014). GLAMUR WP2 - Scoping/Framing General Comparative Report on Food Chain Performance (Deliv- erable 2.3). Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Glouces- tershire, UK. Neven, D. (2014). Developing Sustainable Food Value Chains. Guiding Principles. FAO, Rome. Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325(5939): 419–422. Pretty, J. (2013). The Consumption of a Finite Planet: Well-Being, Convergence, Divergence and the Nascent Green Economy. Environmental and Resource Economics 55: 475–499. Pretty, J.,. Sutherland, W.J., Ashby, J., Auburn, J., Baulcombe, D., Bell, M., Bentley, J., Bick- ersteth, S., Brown, K., Burke, J., Campbell, H., Chen, K., Crowley, E., Crute, I., Dobb- elaere, D., Edwards-Jones, G., Funes-Monzote, F., Godfray, H.C.J., Griffont, M., Gyp- mantisiri, P., Haddad, L., Halavatau, S., Herren, H., Holderness, M., Izac, A-M., Jones, M., Koohafkan, P., Lal R., Lang, T., McNeely, J., Mueller, A., Nisbett, N., Noble, A., Pingali. P., Pinto, Y., Rabbinge, R., Ravindranath. N.H., Rola, A., Roling, N., Sage, C., Settle, W., Sha, J.M., Shiming, L., Simons, T., Smith, P., Strzepeck, K., Swaine, H., Ter- ry, E., Tomich, T.P., Toulmin, C., Trigo, E., Twomlow, S., Vis, J.K., Wilson, J. and Pil- grim, S. (2010). The Top 100 Questions of Importance to the Future of Global Agri- culture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8: 219-236. Pro Specie Rara (2016). Fondation Suisse Pour la Diversité Patrimoniale et Génétique Liée aux Végétaux et aux Animaux. Schader, C., Grenz, J., Meier, M.S. and Stolze, M. (2014). Scope and Precision of Sustain- ability Assessment Approaches of Food Systems. Ecology And Society 19(3), 42. Schmitt, E., Graas, N., Bougouin, H., Cravero, V. and Barjolle, D. (2014). GLAMUR WP2 - National level report Switzerland, Frick. Sutter, M., Nemecek, T. and Thomet, P. (2013). Vergleich der Ökobilanzen von stall- und weidebasierter Milchproduktion. Agrarforschung Schweiz 4: 230–237. Thomet, P., Cutullic, E., Bisig, W., Wuest, C., Elsaesser, M., Steinberger S. and Steinwidder A. (2012). Merits of Full Grazing Systems as a Sustainable and Efficient Milk Pro- duction Strategy. Grassland Science in Europe 16: 273–285. 193Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland Union Suisse des Paysans (2012). Statistique Laitière. Brugg, Switzerland. van der Vorst, J.G. A.J. (2006). Chapter 2: Performance Measurement in Agri-Food Supply-Chain Networks. In Ondersteijn, C.J.M., Wijnands, J.H.M., Huirne, R.B.M. and van Kooten, O. (eds). Quantifying the Agri-Food Supply Chain. Springer, 15–26. Van Passel, S. and Meul, M. (2012). Multilevel and Multi-User Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32: 170–180. A N N EX Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Value Creation and Distribution D iff er en tia tio n of th e pr od uc t no /y es no ye s SA FA ( C 3 .3 .1 ) no ye s 0 10 0 Pr od uc er s’ in co m e ct / kg m ilk 55 c t/ kg 15 6 ct /k g SA FA ( C 1 .4 .1 ) U SP 2 01 2 59 .3 60 .6 9 12 Sh ar e of p ro du ce rs ’ pr ic e on s al e pr ic e % 40 % 60 % U SP 2 01 2, F O A G 20 14 1 42 .7 39 .1 14 0 Social Capital C oo pe ra tiv e or as so ci at io n of pr od uc er s in p la ce no /y es no ye s SA FA ( S 2. 2. 1) ye s ye s 10 0 10 0 In te rp ro fe ss io na l as so ci at io n or ne go tia tio n pl at fo rm no /y es no ye s SA FA ( S 2. 2. 1) ye s ye s 10 0 10 0 Working conditions A ve ra ge w ag e pa id to fa rm e m pl oy ee s C H F/ m on th 31 70 C H F/ m on th 61 25 C H F/ m on th SA FA ( C 1 .4 .1 ) U SP 2 01 2 32 00 32 50 1 3 A av er ag e an nu al in co m e of fa rm er s C H F/ ye ar 44 ’7 72 C H F/ ye ar 67 ’1 58 C H F/ ye ar H oo p & Sc hm id 2 , A gr os co pe 2 01 3, Ex pe rt O . S ch m id 54  9 27 51  4 71 45 30 A N N EX Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Value Creation and Distribution D iff er en tia tio n of th e pr od uc t no /y es no ye s SA FA ( C 3 .3 .1 ) no ye s 0 10 0 Pr od uc er s’ in co m e ct / kg m ilk 55 c t/ kg 15 6 ct /k g SA FA ( C 1 .4 .1 ) U SP 2 01 2 59 .3 60 .6 9 12 Sh ar e of p ro du ce rs ’ pr ic e on s al e pr ic e % 40 % 60 % U SP 2 01 2, F O A G 20 14 1 42 .7 39 .1 14 0 Social Capital C oo pe ra tiv e or as so ci at io n of pr od uc er s in p la ce no /y es no ye s SA FA ( S 2. 2. 1) ye s ye s 10 0 10 0 In te rp ro fe ss io na l as so ci at io n or ne go tia tio n pl at fo rm no /y es no ye s SA FA ( S 2. 2. 1) ye s ye s 10 0 10 0 Working conditions A ve ra ge w ag e pa id to fa rm e m pl oy ee s C H F/ m on th 31 70 C H F/ m on th 61 25 C H F/ m on th SA FA ( C 1 .4 .1 ) U SP 2 01 2 32 00 32 50 1 3 A av er ag e an nu al in co m e of fa rm er s C H F/ ye ar 44 ’7 72 C H F/ ye ar 67 ’1 58 C H F/ ye ar H oo p & Sc hm id 2 , A gr os co pe 2 01 3, Ex pe rt O . S ch m id 54  9 27 51  4 71 45 30 Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Eco-efficiency Pr od uc tio n pe r lif es pa n of d ai ry c ow s kg m ilk p er li fe sp an 25 ’0 00 k g m ilk 60 ’0 00 k g m ilk Ex pe rt C . N ot z 28  1 35 38  2 33 9 38 Pa ck ag in g m at er ia l us ed ca te go ri es C at eg or ie s: co nv en tio na l p ac ka ge - 0% / re cy cl ab le pa ck ag in g - 20 % / pa ck ag in g fr om ce rt ifi ed e co lo gi ca l m at er ia l - 4 0% / pa ck ag in g fr om re cy cl ed m at er ia l - 60 % /p ac ka gi ng fr om re cy cl ed c er tifi ed ec ol og ic al m at er ia l - 80 % / n o pa ck ag in g or r eu se d pa ck ag es - 10 0% SA FA ( E 5. 1. 3) pa ck ag in g fr om ce rt ifi ed e co lo gi ca l pr od uc tio n pa ck ag in g fr om ce rt ifi ed ec ol og ic al pr od uc tio n 40 40 Climate change potential Tr an sp or t G re en ho us e ga s em is si on s C O 2e q. /k m 48 .4 C O 2 e q. /k m 0 C O 2 eq ./k m SA FA ( E 1. 1. 2) be nc hm ar ks c al cu la te d fr om th eo re tic al w or se -c as e 51 .3 19 .8 0 59 Pr od uc tio n G re en ho us e ga s em is si on s kg C O 2e q. /k g m ilk EC M 2. 5 kg C O 2e q. /k g m ilk E C M ( en er gy co rr ec te d m ilk ) 0. 5 kg C O 2e q. /k g m ilk EC M SA FA ( E 1. 1. 2) . N em ec ek e t a l. 20 08 3 1. 1 1. 5 69 53 Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Biodiversity Ec ol og ic al co m pe ns at io n ar ea % o f t ot al a gr ic ul tu ra l ar ea 6% 20 % SA FA ( E 3. 2. 2) , e xp er t A . F lie ss ba ch 11 .8 13 .3 41 52 C ro p ro ta tio ns nu m be r of c ro p ro ta tio ns 3 cr op s 7 cr op s SA FA ( E 4. 2. 4) . R IS E4 ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 3 5. 7 0 68 Lo ca lly a da pt ed / re si st an t/ en da ng er ed cr op v ar ie tie s no /y es no ye s SA FA ( E 4. 3. 3) Pr o Sp ec ie R ar a 20 16 no no 0 0 A re a fr ee o f p es tic id e us e % o f c ro p la nd 0% 10 0% SA FA ( E 4. 1. 2) R IS E ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 27 .9 33 .5 28 34 G M O -f re e fe ed (c er tifi ed ) in th e su pp ly c ha in no /y es no ye s Ja co bs en e t a l. 20 13 5 0 87 .5 0 88 Br ee di ng d eg re e of th e liv es to ck av er ag e of c at eg or ie s fo r al l f ar m er s ca te go ri es : h ig hl y br ed sp ec y fo r in te ns iv e pr od uc tio n -0 % / m ed iu m b re d sp ec y - 50 % / tr ad iti on al s pe cy - 10 0% SA FA ( E 4. 2. 2) , Ex pe rt C . N ot z 50 22 50 22 Soil Preservation G ro w in g of le gu m es in p ro po rt io n of cr op la nd s ur fa ce % o f t he to ta l c ro p la nd 0% 5% ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 0 10 .4 0 10 0 pe rc en ta ge o f o rg an ic fe rt ili ze rs in th e to ta l fe rt ili ze r ap pl ic at io n % o f t ot al fe rt ili ze rs us ed 0% 10 0% SA FA ( E 3. 1. 1) ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 71 .4 69 .7 71 70 Food quality & food safety C on ce nt ra te d fe ed us ed p er k g m ilk g co nc en tr at ed fe ed / kg m ilk p ro du ce d 16 8 g 18 g IP S ui ss e 20 15 13 0. 4 90 .3 25 52 Pe rc en ta ge o f r ou gh ag e in th e an im al fe ed % o f t ot al fe ed 60 % 90 % SA FA ( E 1. 1. 3) ex pe rt C N ot z 70 77 .3 33 58 Fo od s af et y st an da rd s fr om s up pl ie rs no /y es no ye s SA FA ( C 3 .1 .3 – 3 .2 .1 ) ye s ye s 10 0 10 0 Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Biodiversity Ec ol og ic al co m pe ns at io n ar ea % o f t ot al a gr ic ul tu ra l ar ea 6% 20 % SA FA ( E 3. 2. 2) , e xp er t A . F lie ss ba ch 11 .8 13 .3 41 52 C ro p ro ta tio ns nu m be r of c ro p ro ta tio ns 3 cr op s 7 cr op s SA FA ( E 4. 2. 4) . R IS E4 ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 3 5. 7 0 68 Lo ca lly a da pt ed / re si st an t/ en da ng er ed cr op v ar ie tie s no /y es no ye s SA FA ( E 4. 3. 3) Pr o Sp ec ie R ar a 20 16 no no 0 0 A re a fr ee o f p es tic id e us e % o f c ro p la nd 0% 10 0% SA FA ( E 4. 1. 2) R IS E ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 27 .9 33 .5 28 34 G M O -f re e fe ed (c er tifi ed ) in th e su pp ly c ha in no /y es no ye s Ja co bs en e t a l. 20 13 5 0 87 .5 0 88 Br ee di ng d eg re e of th e liv es to ck av er ag e of c at eg or ie s fo r al l f ar m er s ca te go ri es : h ig hl y br ed sp ec y fo r in te ns iv e pr od uc tio n -0 % / m ed iu m b re d sp ec y - 50 % / tr ad iti on al s pe cy - 10 0% SA FA ( E 4. 2. 2) , Ex pe rt C . N ot z 50 22 50 22 Soil Preservation G ro w in g of le gu m es in p ro po rt io n of cr op la nd s ur fa ce % o f t he to ta l c ro p la nd 0% 5% ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 0 10 .4 0 10 0 pe rc en ta ge o f o rg an ic fe rt ili ze rs in th e to ta l fe rt ili ze r ap pl ic at io n % o f t ot al fe rt ili ze rs us ed 0% 10 0% SA FA ( E 3. 1. 1) ex pe rt A . F lie ss ba ch 71 .4 69 .7 71 70 Food quality & food safety C on ce nt ra te d fe ed us ed p er k g m ilk g co nc en tr at ed fe ed / kg m ilk p ro du ce d 16 8 g 18 g IP S ui ss e 20 15 13 0. 4 90 .3 25 52 Pe rc en ta ge o f r ou gh ag e in th e an im al fe ed % o f t ot al fe ed 60 % 90 % SA FA ( E 1. 1. 3) ex pe rt C N ot z 70 77 .3 33 58 Fo od s af et y st an da rd s fr om s up pl ie rs no /y es no ye s SA FA ( C 3 .1 .3 – 3 .2 .1 ) ye s ye s 10 0 10 0 Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Transparency Pr op or tio n of in fo rm at io n av ai la bl e to fa rm er s av er ag e of c at eg or ie s fo r al l f ar m er s % o f t he fo llo w in g ca te go ri es : fi na l p ri ce , ty pe o f p ro du ct , p la ce of s al e SA FA ( G 2 .3 .1 ) 0 42 .4 0 42 Su ffi ci en t a nd c le ar In fo rm at io n av ai la bl e fo r co ns um er s ca te go ri es ( % ) ca te go ri es e ac h w or th 2 0% : l eg al ly re qu ir ed in fo rm at io n/ ad di tio na l i nf or m at io n on n ut ri tio n / ad di tio na l i nf or m at io n on a ni m al h us ba nd ry co nd iti on s / A dd iti on al in fo rm at io n of in gr ed ie nt s’ so ur ce s / O th er a dd iti on al in fo rm at io n SA FA ( C 3 .3 .1 ) 40 80 40 80 In fo rm at io n m ad e pu bl ic ly a va ila bl e ca te go ri es ( % ) C at eg or ie s ea ch w or th 2 0% : l eg al ly re qu ir ed in fo rm at io n/ In fo rm at io n on en te rp ri se s’ st ru ct ur e/ in fo rm at io n on s ta nd ar ds an d pr oc es se s/ A nn ua l fi na nc ia l re po rt in g/ c or po ra te re sp on si bi lit y re po rt / D at a fr ee ly a va ila bl e SA FA ( G 2 .3 .1 ) 70 10 0 67 10 0 Attribute In di ca to r U ni t Lo w b en ch m ar k H ig h be nc hm ar k R ef er en ce s fo r cr ea tio n an d be nc hm ar ks D at a G lo ba l D at a Lo ca l Sc or e G lo ba l (% ) Sc or e Lo ca l (% ) Food Wastage U se o f b io ga s pl an ts no /y es no ye s R IS E no no 0 0 U se o f b yp ro du ct s fr om th e fo od in du st ry as a ni m al fe ed ( % o f fa rm er s) % o f f ar m er s 0% 10 0% B er et ta e t a l. 20 13 6 20 17 .6 20 18 M ilk lo ss o n fa rm % 10 % 0% SA FA ( E 5. 3. 4) B er et ta e t a l. 20 13 1 1. 5 90 85 M ilk lo ss a t p ro ce ss in g % 0. 5% 0% SA FA ( E 5. 3. 4) B er et ta e t a l. 20 13 0. 5 0. 2 0 60 Traceability Tr ac ea bi lit y up st re am of th e su pp ly c ha in av er ag e of c at eg or ie s fo r al l f ar m er s ca te go ri es : n o - 0% / pa rt ia lly - 5 0% / ye s - 10 0% SA FA ( C 3 .3 .2 ) 20 67 .6 20 68 Tr ac ea bi lit y do w ns tr ea m o f t he su pp ly c ha in no /y es ca te go ri es : n o - 0% / pa rt ia lly - 5 0% / ye s - 10 0% SA FA ( C 3 .3 .2 ) 10 0 66 .7 10 0 67 Animal welfare Pr op or tio n of Pa rt ic ip at io n in ou td oo r gr az in g pr og ra m % o f p ar tic ip at io n (f ro m a ll fa rm er s) 0% 75 % Ex pe rt C . N ot z 69 10 0 92 10 0 Li fe s pa n of th e da ir y co w s ye ar s 5 ye ar s 8 ye ar s Ex pe rt C . N ot z 4. 5 5 0 0 Pr op or tio n of Pa rt ic ip at io n in lo os e ho us in g pr og ra m % o f p ar tic ip at io n (f ro m a ll fa rm er s) 0% 30 % SA FA ( E 6. 2. 1) Ex pe rt C . N ot z 23 70 .6 77 10 0 Pr op or tio n of a ni m al s tr ea te d by A nt ib io tic s in a y ea r % tr ea te d co w s 90 % 30 % SA FA ( E 6. 1. 2) Ex pe rt C . N ot z 17 .5 35 .8 10 0 90 Tr an sp or ta tio n du ra tio n to th e sl au gh te rh ou se m in ut es 12 0 m in ut es 30 m in ut es SA FA ( E 6. 2. 3) Ex pe rt C . N ot z 46 .3 42 .9 82 86 1 Fe d er al O ffi ce fo r A g ri cu lt u re (F O A G ). (2 01 4) . M ar kt b er ic h t M ilc h . K o n su m m ilc h : M ar kt an te ils g ew in n f ü r D is co u n te r. B er n . 2 H o o p , D ., an d S ch m id , D . ( 20 13 ). G ru n d la g en b er ic h t 20 12 . E tt en h au se n . 3 N em ec ek , T ., Vo n R ic h th o fe n , J. , D u b o is , G ., C as ta , P. , C h ar le s, R ., an d P ah l, H . (2 00 8) . En vi ro n m en ta l im p ac ts o f in tr o d u ci n g g ra in l eg u m es i n to E u ro p ea n c ro p r o ta ti o n s. Eu ro pe an J ou rn al o f A gr on om y 28 : 3 80 -3 93 . d o i:1 0. 10 16 /j .e ja .2 00 7. 11 .0 04 4 G re n z, J . e t a l. (2 00 9) . R IS E – a m et h o d fo r as se ss in g t h e su st ai n ab ili ty o f ag ri cu lt u ra l p ro d u ct io n a t. Ru ra l d ev el op m en t N ew s 1: 5 -9 . 5 Ja co b se n , S .E . e t a l. (2 01 3) . F ee d in g t h e w o rl d : G en et ic al ly m o d ifi ed c ro p s ve rs u s ag ri cu lt u ra l b io d iv er si ty . A gr on om y fo r S us ta in ab le D ev el op m en t 33 : 6 51 -6 62 . 6 B er et ta , C . e t a l. (2 01 3) . Q u an ti fy in g fo o d lo ss es a n d t h e p o te n ti al fo r re d u ct io n in S w it ze rl an d . W as te m an ag em en t 33 (3 ): 76 4- 77 3.